Floor Statements

Mr. President, we currently have over 400,000 children in our foster care system due to abuse or neglect by their biological families, with 104,000 eligible for adoption. Tragically every year nearly 28,000 of these children age out of our foster care system with no place to call home. On average, foster children spend over 3 years in the system and around 16 percent languish in the foster care system for over 5 years. Only around 3 percent start college and even fewer finish their degree. We must continue working to connect children in our foster system to a safe, loving, and permanent home while also doing more to address their educational outcomes.

I am greatly concerned that too many of our Nation's foster youth are unable to appropriately access critical Federal programs that provide assistance to help increase their educational opportunities. Higher education can hold the key to a future of stability and it is unacceptable that many foster youth who are eligible for higher education funds, such as Education and Training Vouchers, ETV, and support through the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, are never told about these programs.

This is why I have worked with my colleagues to introduce a bipartisan bill to direct the Department of Education to fully utilize the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, as a tool to notify foster youth of all Federal funds which may be available to support their pursuit of higher education, and include information specifically for foster youth on their agency website. The Foster Youth Higher Education Opportunities Act will automate the notification to foster youth of their potential eligibility for programs that serve as a lifeline to a better future.

I would like to recognize Senators Inhofe, Franken, Levin, Murray,

Cardin, Blumenthal, Begich, Rockefeller, and Landrieu as original cosponsors of this bill. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the majority leader comes to the floor.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, is tied up right now with a scheduling conflict, working on the fiscal cliff issue, so he asked me if I would kick off the debate with respect to the Russia PNTR, H.R. 6156, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012.

I am very happy to do this on behalf of Senator Baucus. We share a great partnership together as chairman of our two committees focused on trade and on the relationship with Russia, both of which come together in the legislation today.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn't say a word about what consumed us yesterday with the vote on the disabilities treaty. It is certainly a moment that stands out in my memories of my time in the Senate. I can't think of any other time when a former majority leader has come to the floor--a veteran--who sought to have his colleagues join together in supporting something that would improve the lives of people with disabilities.

I am not going to go back and reargue it now. That would be fruitless and I think not helpful to where we want to move to. What we want to move to is a place where we can pass this. I can say--I believe this--I can say to Senator Robert Dole that we will pass the disabilities treaty and we will pass it, I believe, early next year. I base that on the fact that some Senators had difficulties with the fact that we are in a lameduck session and they had signed a letter which, regrettably, some of them didn't digest completely but nevertheless signed, saying they wouldn't take up a treaty in a lameduck session and I think some felt compelled by that and others felt compelled by other things.

But here is what I think we can do. Starting next year, I believe we can move to additional hearings that can make crystal clear to all colleagues the state, as it may not have been yesterday in some cases, with respect to both the law and the facts as it applies to persons with disabilities. I pledge now to make certain that within the resolution of advice and consent, any concern that was not adequately addressed--I personally believe they were addressed--it is possible we can find the language that will address the concerns of any Senator who yesterday felt--whether it was the United Nations or homeschooling, I believe those things can be adequately addressed. I do know a number of Senators said they would be prepared to vote for it after we are out of the lameduck session, and I am confident we will pass the disabilities treaty in a different atmosphere and in a different time.

One of the things I learned from my senior colleague Ted Kennedy, who did this for so many years, is that perseverance pays off when the issue is worth fighting for and we always have another day and another vote in the Senate. That always affords us the opportunity to make things right. We are certainly going to try and do that.

This PNTR-Magnitsky bill is, in fact, one of those opportunities where we can start to put the Senate on the right track, and I think all of us look forward to the chance to be able to do that.

This bill passed the House of Representatives by a huge margin of 365 to 43. What it would do is establish permanent normal trade relations for Russia, and it would require the identification and imposition of sanctions on individuals who are responsible for the detention, abuse and death of Sergei

Magnitsky and other gross violations of human rights.

Let me make my best argument, if I can, in favor of the bill, and then I wish to turn the discussion over to the ranking member, Senator Hatch, to present his case for passage. After that, the Presiding Officer of the Senate at this moment, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, will lead a discussion of the provisions of the act related to honoring the memory of Sergei Magnitsky and combating the types of human rights abuses that led to his premature and tragic death. I wish to congratulate the Presiding Officer and salute him for his significant efforts. He has been dogged, and that component of this legislation would not be here today if it weren't for the efforts of the Senator from Maryland. Chairman Baucus will then have been able to return to manage the rest of the consideration on the floor at that time.

As the Presiding Officer knows, Chairman Baucus and I lead the two Senate committees that are charged with overseeing the twin pillars of America's unique role in the world. Our commitment to open, transparent and free markets and our commitment to democracy and open discourse is a force for international peace. We believe our global economic interests and our foreign policy values are closely tied together. They should be closely tied together. That is why we urge our colleagues to seize this opportunity that Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization presents for both job creation and our ability to bind Russia to a rule-based system of trade and dispute resolution.

Granting Russia permanent normal trade relations is as much in our interests as it is in theirs. Frankly, that is what ought to guide the choices we make in the Senate. The upside of this policy is clear on an international landscape. It is one that rarely offers this kind of what I would call, frankly, a kind of one-sided trade deal--one that promises billions of dollars in new U.S. exports and thousands of new jobs in America. That is certainly in our interests.

Today, Russia is the world's seventh largest economy. Having officially joined the WTO on August 22, Russia is now required by its membership in the WTO to lower tariffs and open to new imports. That sudden jump in market access is, frankly, important to any country that is the first country through the door, and if we don't pass this trade legislation, we will not be among those countries.

I can tell my colleagues Massachusetts, speaking for my State, welcomes access to the Russian market, and we want that access to be played out on a level playing field. The State of Massachusetts exported $120 million worth of goods to Russia last year, and those exports obviously support hundreds of jobs. But if we don't pass this bill, those exports will face competition from other countries that will not pay the same high-level tariff we currently pay.

Let's take one specific example. Massachusetts exported $18.5 million in medical equipment to Russia in 2011, but we face strong competition from China, which has increased its share of the Russian market in each of the last 10 years. We don't shy away from strong competition, but we want that competition to be able to be played out on an even playing field. As long as we don't have normal permanent trade relations with Russia, we are disadvantaging ourselves. It simply doesn't make sense. Since joining the WTO, Russia agreed to reduce average tariffs on medical equipment to 4.3 percent and to cut its top tariffs from 15 percent down to 7 percent. As it stands now, that is a benefit China will get and we will not. It simply doesn't make sense to anybody.

To grant Russia PNTR status requires us to repeal the 1974 Jackson- Vanik amendment. A lot of our staff members, I hasten to say, were not even born back when Jackson-Vanik was put in place. Many of our colleagues and a lot of our staff have studied the Soviet Union but have never experienced that period of time. What we are living with is a complete and total relic of a bygone era.

Congress passed Jackson-Vanik during the Cold War to pressure the Soviet Union to allow Russian Jews to be able to emigrate freely. It was very successful. It worked, and as a result, the Kremlin worked with us and others to help Jews be able to emigrate. As a result, every single U.S. President has, regardless of political party, waived Jackson-Vanik's requirements for Russia since 1994. The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, and the Government of Israel now all support the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia. With too many Americans still searching for jobs all across our country, our manufacturing sector needs every boost it can get. We cannot afford to retain Jackson-Vanik any longer. This is in America's interest. Despite progress, our trade deficit remains too wide, and I think that seizing this opportunity to increase exports to Russia is one very obvious way to be able to make concrete progress in reducing that trade deficit.

U.S. exports to Russia total more than $9 billion a year. Establishing PNTR for Russia could double that number in just 5 years, according to one recent study. That could mean thousands of new jobs across every sector of our economy. With the Russian economy's impressive growth, it is actually--Russia is expected to outgrow Germany by about 2029, so it is steadily growing in the world marketplace. The long-run gains for everybody would be even greater.

None of us is going to suggest that every issue with respect to Russia has been resolved. We know there are still points of tension, and some of them in the foreign policy area are very relevant today, for instance, over Syria. We understand that. We hope recent events in Syria may be moving Russia and the United States closer in terms of our thinking. But it is only a good thing to bring Russia into a rules- based system with mechanisms for peaceful, transparent dispute resolution.

There is no debate--and I think the Presiding Officer knows this full well--that the very tragic and senseless death of anticorruption lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died while in Russian custody--is simply unacceptable. It is appalling, and it highlights a human rights problem that has grown in its scope, not diminished. It is one we hope to be able to resolve with good relationships and good discussions.

Senator Cardin, the sponsor of that legislation in the House and in the Senate, is going to speak shortly about it, and I will leave him to describe in full the nature of that particular component of this bill. But suffice it to say that human rights, democracy, and transparency activists in Russia favor the passage of constructive human rights legislation in our Congress, and they also see WTO membership and increased trade for the United States as an avenue toward progress. So there is no contradiction in what is happening. They understand, as we all should, that repealing Jackson-Vanik is not a blanket acceptance of any particular policy or approach in Russia. It is certainly not an acceptance of what happened with respect to Sergei Magnitsky and that is because of the Magnitsky legislation.

Repealing the bill--repealing Jackson-Vanik--is not an economic giveaway to Russia. To the contrary, it represents, as I have described, an enormous opportunity for the United States to compete on a fair playing field with other countries and to create more jobs in the United States. By establishing PNTR with Russia, U.S. businesses will win increased market access without giving up anything in return. There would be no tariff changes, no market concessions, nothing. It, frankly, diminishes the willingness of some hard-liners in Russia to distort the current dialog and to distort the possibilities of a better relationship, which we want with Russia. By taking this away, we will reduce the abuse of Jackson-Vanik as a rhetorical tool to rally anti- American sentiment in Russia. I believe we can do something very important here today and both our economy and our foreign policy will be better for the effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Toby Hyman has become something of an institution in the Senate over the course of her 17 odd years of service in the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment. I understand that she has consistently and tirelessly devoted herself to ensuring fairness for both Senate employees and their offices, helping them sort through anything from day-to-day concerns that arise to courtroom arguments to union disputes, even in the midst of an anthrax attack on her own office.

Those who know her best say that she displays compassion for employers and employees alike, a deep understanding of employment law and conflict, and great skill resolving disputes and achieving fair outcomes for all involved parties. By all accounts, the Senate body is better today for her efforts, which is why her retirement is received with bittersweet, much deserved well-wishes for the future by her colleagues.

Before her time here, Toby spent 20 years as a fine attorney at the prestigious Proskauer Rose firm in New York City. Prior to that, she served as the first female law clerk for the Honorable District Court Judge John F. Dooling, Jr. And prior to that, she was a fine young citizen of the great State of Massachusetts.

Toby grew up in a family like so many in Boston. She is a proud product of Boston's public schools, including the Girls' Latin School in Roxbury, who excelled in her studies and earned admittance to the government program at Radcliffe College, from which she graduated magna cum laude. Toby then continued to impress her friends and peers at Harvard Law School, where she performed as an able editor of the Harvard Law Review and, once again, graduated with distinction.

To afford these years of schooling, Toby simultaneously pursued a degree in Jewish Education from Hebrew College in order to earn money teaching in Hebrew schools. She wanted to give back to her community, pass on an education that she so enjoyed to the coming generation, and work with children, all while making a little money to sustain her during college. And so she made it happen. Pleased parents affectionately labeled one of her classes the ``Hebrew Sesame Street.''

Service to others--standing up for fairness and justice--has been a common thread running through Toby's

life. From her days back home in her native Massachusetts, to her career in New York City, to her visit to the Soviet Union in the late 1970s where she greeted oppressed Soviet Jews with encouragement and a helping hand, Toby has treated people with compassion and respect and has stood up for their rights and dignity. Most recently, during her time as an advocate for us all here in the Senate family, she worked with our offices to ensure a good and fair relationship between employers and employees.

So it is no surprise that Toby intends for the next chapter of her life to involve volunteer work teaching young children. She will continue in the example she has set throughout her life and career as an educator, mediator, and advocate for fairness. I thank Toby for dedicating so many years of her life to service in the Senate and look forward to all that she has yet to accomplish--and wish her congratulations on a well deserved retirement.

Mr. President I come to the floor today to remember William Meehan, an ``icon'' of Somerset, in the words of former fire chief Steven Rivard. He was a loving, and beloved, husband to JoAnne, brother to Robert and John, father to John and Steve, and grandfather to Jake, Owen, and Liam. William is remembered by those who knew him best as an impassioned cheerleader and reliable presence on the sidelines of his grandchildren's sports games, as a thoughtful and compassionate voice on the Board of Selectmen, as an affable, warm family man armed with a lively Irish humor.

William was an anchor of his family and of his town. His care for his town shone through his work and was reflected in his daily life. The people of Somerset recall a dedicated public servant who embodied the most noble qualities of a community advocate while eschewing the divisive demagoguery that too often finds its way into politics. In his 15 years as one of three selectmen for his town, he proved time and again that he was more interested in understanding the concerns of others and finding a just solution to any problem than he was in political bickering. And his example inspired those around him, with his son Michael venturing into public service and actually serving in my office for many years with great distinction.

In his last year on the board of selectmen, William was a part of the opening of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, a decade's long project to connect Fall River with Somerset over the Taunton River. And he was intimately involved in the process that put into motion plans for the new Somerset Berkley Regional High School. His interest was always in community over conflict, in people rather than politics, and that is to what he devoted his life.

Friends remember William having lunch every day with peers or first responders or community leaders, and he would often be found chatting with neighbors and storekeepers around town or among the stands at local sporting events. He was a sportsman himself, with baseball second only to family and community. When he wasn't coaching Somerset Little League, as he did for many years, he could be found out on the golf course.

I understand that William would make time each day after lunch to venture to the park and watch the boats sailing the Taunton River. I imagine the gentle breeze off the water, the parade of ships coming and going with the sun high in the sky, and William sitting along the shore facing the water, breathing in the air and taking in the moment. We won't see him there any longer, but when we look out at the boats drifting by, we will think of William and remember the goodness he shared with the people of Somerset and beyond.

To JoAnne and William's family, I extend my deepest condolences. And to William, I wish him eternal rest watching over his family and all those he cared about so deeply. And I wish him the same peace he found along the river's edge.

Mr. President, we are now, as everybody knows, on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is my understanding that we have about 48 minutes for each side. I would ask the opponents of the treaty to do what we normally do, which is go back and forth from one side to the other. I notice there is no one here for the other side, so what we will do is use up a component of our time, and then, because they are not here, I think it would be fair not to chew up the time in a quorum call.

So I ask unanimous consent that if the opponents on the other side are not ready to speak or to use their time, that the quorum call be charged against them because I don't think we should give up our time as a result of their simply not being here. So I ask unanimous consent that if there is a quorum and we are not speaking, the time be charged to their side.

Mr. President, that is fine. I accept that. What I am trying to do is to use this debate period, important as it is, as effectively as possible on both sides.

I see there is a Member from the other side who is in opposition, so I withdraw my request, and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. President, I would inform the Senator from Oklahoma that we have agreed to simply proceed, hopefully alternating from side to side. We have about 48 minutes on each side, and I have yielded 10 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator has raised the specter of somehow there would be a change in this treaty at some point that might affect America. Is the Senator not aware that any change to a treaty, in order to go into effect and have any impact on the United States, would require the advice and consent of the United States Senate?

Without the advice and consent of the Senate, no change could possibly impact the United States.

Mr. President, it is important in this kind of debate as we make a judgment with the Senators that we base our judgment on facts and on the reality. The Senator has suggested he is opposed to this treaty because an outside group could impose its will on the United States of America. What he has just acknowledged is they can't do that because it would require the advice and consent of the Senate.

But, secondly, is the Senator aware that Senator Risch asked the Justice Department whether the Court interpreted the effect of a nonself-executing declaration--which is in this treaty? And the response is, the Court said: The United States ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights on the express understanding that it was not self-executing. And so it did not create obligations enforceable in the Federal courts.

So the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the very standard being applied in this treaty, that it is not self-executing, means nobody has access to any court. There is no enforceable right against anybody in America created in this treaty.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator, and I understand there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have concerns about the United Nations, and I respect that. We have had these fights before, but I am having difficulty finding where the threat that the Senator has described gains any reality.

Specifically, with respect to children, the Senator mentioned the question of a committee being created, and sometimes committees make recommendations outside of the purview of something. That may be true. But when have words, I ask the Senator--when have words or suggestions that have no power, that cannot be implemented, that have no access to the courts, that have no effect on the law of the United States and cannot change the law of the United States--when has that ever threatened anybody in our country?

Does the Senator agree that there is no power to change our law?

Can the Senator show where it is specifically when the Supreme Court has held this is not self-executing, there is no access to American courts; when it is clear by the statements of the treaty itself there is no law of the United States that is changed? When Attorney General Thornburgh, who helped to negotiate this treaty on behalf of President George Bush, says there is no change in law, what is it that the Senator suddenly has that suggests otherwise that has any basis in fact?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator further, I know he is a good student of law, practitioner of law. I believe he understands that a treaty does not become customary international law just because the United States or another country ratifies it. The Senator is aware of that, I assume?

Again, the Senator has acknowledged that it does not become customary law; as a consequence, it has to somehow change. Within this--the Senator will agree that because the treaty adopts, in the body of the treaty, the statement that this is not self-executing and the Supreme Court has held that a nonexecuting treaty--let me just reference the specific case--Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, a 2004 case--the Supreme Court said it is dispositive. Nonself-executing declaration is dispositive. The Court noted that the United States ratified a prior thing then--and said, ``it does not create obligations enforceable in Federal courts.''

So there is no obligation created. The Senator then said: Why would we do this? Because we are the gold standard, and every other country is encouraged--encouraged; we cannot require them, but they are encouraged--to raise their standard to U.S. standards.

Why would the Senator resist? I know the Senator and many of his colleagues argue we want other countries to be more like America. This is a treaty that, in fact, embraces that notion that they must be more like America. Why would the Senator not embrace that?

I would say to the Senator, for a number of reasons: That allows the United States to sit at the table and actually advocate on behalf of our veterans, disabled veterans, who travel abroad.

No, let me make clear to the Senator, I have not said it does nothing. I have said it does not require a change in American law. I have said that it does not obligate the United States to a new set of standards or anything different from what we do today. I have said it does not allow anybody access to the Federal courts. That is different from saying it doesn't do anything. If it didn't do anything, I would not be here either. Nor would George Bush have signed this. Nor would George Herbert Walker Bush have begun the negotiations.

This is not a Democrat-inspired treaty. This is a universally accepted set of principles about how we would like to see people in the rest of the world treat people with disabilities.

There is more to be said about that, and there is more to be said. I want my colleagues to speak about why we are here.

Let me recognize, if I can, the Senator from Arizona?--no, I will hold off on that, if I may.

Let me recognize the Senator from New Mexico for 5 minutes.

How much time remains?

How much on the opponent's side?

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.

Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I renew my request now. We have had about four successive Democrats speak. There is nobody here from the other side. I do not think it is fair to have our time docked as a result. So I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to the opponents.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Arizona 7 minutes.

Mr. President, what is the time allegation?

Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona--it is my understanding that there is no other speaker on the Senator's side. I would simply ask if we could have an additional 5 minutes on this side, if the Senator would not object, and that would bring us to the vote at noon.

Mr. President, let me just say to the Senator from Arizona before he leaves, the Senator and I have engaged on these issues for some years now, and we have disagreed respectfully and in a friendly way.

I would say to him, very respectfully, that there is no contradiction in the position of the proponents of this bill. While I understand what he said about China, the fact is that because China has signed up--and Russia and other countries--if we were a party to this and at the table discussing it, we would have greater leverage in order to be able to advance the rights of persons in China and elsewhere.

Now, don't take that from me, I would say to the Senator from Arizona. Guongcheng Chen is the blind activist for civil rights in China who has sought refuge in America for a brief period of time. His family has suffered in China, and he has written a letter to us. He says:

Dear Senators,

I am writing you to personally ask for your support for the

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As you

know, my work on civil rights began with trying to ensure

that people with disabilities in my home country of China

were afforded the same rights as everyone else. The CRPD is

making this idea real in significant ways around the world

today.

He goes on to say:

I am hopeful that you will support ratification and allow

others to benefit from these triumphs.

And he is referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the other things we have done.

I ask unanimous consent that this document of organizations supporting the treaty be placed in the Record.

Over 328 veterans and disability organizations, all of our veterans organizations, who deal with people with disabilities and challenges support this treaty and believe it will make a difference.

So when the Senator says: I don't believe it will make a difference, every working member of the disabilities community disagrees with the Senator.

I would just say to him respectfully that the facts are clear. He said this ties our hands. It doesn't tie our hands. Senator Lee came to the floor earlier, and he agreed this doesn't require any change of U.S. law.

So I would say to my friend, there is no tying of the hands. We understand the fears people have, but I think it is important to try to decide this on the basis of fact.

I yield to the Senator on his time.

Well, we obviously differ on that.

Let me emphasize the importance of the 328 groups, and I have submitted that for the Record.

We are going to vote in a few minutes, and we are going to vote on a treaty that I regret to say some people

are making controversial when, in fact, it really isn't controversial.

What this treaty says is very simple: It just says that people can't discriminate against the disabled. It says other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In four simple words, this treaty says to other countries that don't respect the rights of the disabled: Be more like us. That is what we are asking people to do. It doesn't require any changes to American law, zero. This has no tying of the hands of America. There isn't one law in the United States that would be negatively affected. But it will push, it will leverage, it will require other countries by their commitment to be held accountable to the standard that we have set and take our gold standard and extend it to the rest of the world.

There are three reasons I have heard that we can't do this. When I hear them, I am reminded of what I learned when I was a prosecutor, which was quite a few years ago now. I learned: If the facts are against you, then argue the law. If the law is against you, then argue the facts. If both are against you, just make it up.

Well, that is exactly what is happening here. Neither the law nor the facts support any argument that has been made on the other side of this treaty. Accordingly, we are facing an entirely fictitious set of arguments--on abortion, on homeschooling, on lameduck sessions. All of their arguments have been contradicted by the facts in the law, and let me document that.

This treaty is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We passed that 20 years ago.

The father of the act is sitting here, the Senator from Iowa. In all those 20 years, has any child been separated from a parent because of the ADA? No. Has homeschooling been hurt? No. In fact it has grown and is flourishing across the Nation.

How is it possible a treaty, that according to our Supreme Court offers no recourse, no change in American law, no access to American courts, how is it possible that such a treaty could threaten anybody in our country? The answer is simple: It doesn't and it can't.

Well, let's go through the arguments one by one. First, they say it would undermine our sovereignty. I have heard several people suggest that, the laws governing the disabled. Well, that is wrong. Senator Lee just admitted it doesn't affect any law in the United States. All it does is create a committee on the rights of persons with disabilities.

What can this committee do? All it can do is review reports and make a suggestion. Are we scared, in the United States of America, of someone making a suggestion to us about how we might do something? It has no recourse in the court, no legal standing.

The Foreign Relations Committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to make it crystal clear. What are we afraid of? That the committee would give us this advice?

The second misconception is that this will allow the Federal Government, acting under U.N. instructions, to determine what is best for children with disabilities. Again, that is just flat wrong. The treaty does not give the Federal Government or any State government any new powers with respect to children with disabilities. It doesn't change the balance of power between Federal and State government. It doesn't require any change to existing State or Federal law.

The Justice Department, former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that any assertion to the contrary is incorrect. Our committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to absolutely crystallize those limitations.

Finally, there are those who argue that a lameduck session is an inappropriate time for Senators to consider this treaty. Well, my colleagues, please, since the 1970s alone, the Senate has approved treaties during lameduck sessions a total of 19 times. There is nothing special or different about a lameduck. It is a session of the Congress. Just as we are going to consider important fiscal matters, we should consider other important matters.

Our constituents expect us to do our jobs. There is no difference between a lameduck, a dead duck, or a regular duck. We ought to be here doing our jobs.

More than any of the straw men, though, that we would have to deal with in this debate, there is, in fact, something much bigger at stake. This treaty and this vote will say a great deal about who we are in the Senate and who we are as a country.

In the nearly 30 years I have been here, I think this is the first time I have seen a former majority leader of the Senate come to the Senate floor for a vote. It is certainly the first time that I have seen it happen when he had every right to be at home at age 89 taking care of his health, but that is not Bob Dole.

Almost 70 years ago, when he came home to Kansas from the battlefields of Italy in a full body cast, people said that Bob would never have to work another day in his life. That is what they said; he was a hero; he had made his contribution. But Bob Dole worked every single day to stand, to walk, and to use his arms again. He made himself get out of that bed, and he made himself a public servant and a U.S. Senator and the Republican nominee for President in 1996. But his greatest pride was passing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Bob Dole, why is he here? He is not here because he is here to advocate for the United Nations, and certainly this man who served his country is not here because he doesn't want to defend the sovereignty of the United States of America. He is here because he wants to know that other countries will come to treat the disabled the way we do.

He is here because he wants to know that when a disabled American veteran, our wounded warriors, travel overseas, they are treated with the same dignity and respect they receive at home. That is why an 89- year-old veteran, 1 week removed from Bethesda Naval Hospital, comes back to the Senate on an early December day. Because it matters.

What we do in the Senate matters not just to us but to people all across the globe, and maybe some people here need to be reminded of that. This is not about politics, this is not about ideology, this is about people.

This treaty helps thousands of vets, men and women, who paid the price of devotion to our country with their limbs--with their limbs-- and they struggle every day to get up, button their shirts, get out of the house. Some of them struggle to be able to share in life as all of us are able to share in it.

I met one of them yesterday, Army Afghan vet Dan Berschinski, a double amputee as a result of the war in Afghanistan. He has fought back, and he has recovered enough to create a small business. Here is what he said, this West Point grad of 2007:

I'm proud to be able to walk using prosthetic legs. Yet

obstacles that might seem inconsequential to the fully able-

bodied, like sidewalk curbs and stairs, take on a whole new

meaning for veterans like me who struggle to walk, or use a

wheelchair. Very fortunately for me, the United States leads

the world in accessibility and equality of opportunity for

the disabled. Unfortunately, the advantages granted here at

home--that allow people like me to live fulfilling,

independent lives--don't exist in much of the rest of the

world.

Eight months after being wounded in combat, and while still

a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I joined--

And I am speaking for him--

a few friends in a trip to South Africa to watch the World

Cup.

There I found myself in a different country, with no legs,

a brand-new wheelchair and a lot of apprehension. While I

should have been enjoying this once-in-a-lifetime trip, I was

constantly worried about my ability to get around. Would the

restaurant have an accessible bathroom or would I have to go

without it? Would my wheelchair be able to fit in the hotel

doorway or would I need to be carried into the lobby? Those

are the kinds of questions we take for granted here in

America, but, unfortunately, the accessibility measures we

enjoy here simply aren't present in many other countries.

That is why Bob Dole and CPT Dan Berschinski want us to approve this treaty. I have heard nothing from the other side that outweighs the reality of that consideration for not just veterans but all persons with disabilities.

What is at stake here is big. The outcome here will not, despite the fear, change one election here in the Senate. It is not going to decide one of the primaries that I fear are distorting the

politics of our country. But you know what, it will decide whether some people live or die in another country, where there is no accountability and only United States values and standards are the difference to the prospects of someone with a disability.

In some countries children are disposed of--killed--because they have a disability. Our treaty can actually help prevent that. In some countries children do not get to go to school and certainly have no prospects of a future simply because they are born with a disability. This treaty will help offer hope where there is none. The United States could actually sit at the table and make the difference for people with disabilities because we are willing to push our values and hold other nations accountable to meet our standards--the gold standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. President, I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk many times about making the rest of the world more like America. I hate to think that now, when we have an opportunity to do that, they will retreat from that core conviction and oppose a treaty modeled on the United States' example which has no recourse in American courts and no effect on American law.

This treaty isn't about American behavior, except to the degree that it influences other countries to be more like us. This treaty is about the behavior of other countries and their willingness to raise their treatment of people with disabilities to our level. It is that simple. This treaty isn't about changing America, it is a treaty to change the world to be more like America.

So why join, I have heard my colleagues ask several times. If it doesn't have recourse in the law, why join? I will tell you why: Because we can sit at the table and affect the lives of our citizens by pushing other countries upwards; because we gain credibility and accelerate change through our advocacy by being part of a process; because it is good for American businesses, which can sell products and services as other nations raise their standards and need our expertise to meet their goals. That is why, incidentally, the United States Chamber of Commerce supports this treaty as do a huge number of businesses.

Why support it? Because George H. W. Bush started this process and President George W. Bush signed the treaty to participate in it. And because, in the end, this treaty and our participation in it--and this is the most important--can improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. To join it is to keep faith with the men and women who have suffered grievous disability in defense of our Nation, and we owe them nothing less. This treaty is not about changing America, it is about America changing the world.

But a vote here is a test of this institution. This vote is a test of whether the Senate, which passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, is still capable of voting to change things, not to mention sending a message that could change the world.

I ask my colleagues to do for the world what they have done for America, walk down the aisle here for millions everywhere who cannot walk and make a statement; raise your voice and vote for millions who are voiceless in their own lands; stand for those who cannot stand for themselves. This is not about the United Nations, this is about common humanity. This vote is to test to see whether the Senate will stand for those who cannot see or hear and whether Senators can hear the truth and see the facts.

Please don't let Captain Berschinski down. Don't let Senator Bob Dole down. Most importantly, don't let the Senate and the country down. Approve this treaty.

Mr. President, let me just reiterate--I think Senator Barrasso is here and Senator Lee, and others; Senator Kyl is also here--we look forward to working over the course of the next few hours with our colleagues to try to come to some understanding of the amendments here.

One of the things that we promised--and Senator Reid has altered his approach to this in order to try to accommodate our colleagues--is to make certain we are not closing people out and there is no effort to try to limit the debate.

I do think, by virtue of the work done in committee and otherwise, there is a limit to where we need to go in terms of amendments. So I am perfectly happy--together with Senator Lugar--to work with our colleagues with respect to a reservation or an understanding or a declaration that they believe needs to be tweaked. We will see what we can do with respect to the number of amendments we want to bring.

Let me just say to my colleagues that this treaty should not be controversial. Senator Robert Dole, President George H.W. Bush, former Republican Attorney General Richard Thornburg, and current colleagues Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others have all supported and believe we ought to move forward with this treaty in a bipartisan manner.

I would say to my colleagues that in the wake of the election, this is the first legislative effort we are making on the floor of the Senate. It would be my hope that we could reflect that we heard the American people, who asked us to do their business and to not fall into the pattern of partisan divide, of gridlock that has so characterized the Senate over the course of the last few years. This is our opportunity to prove that the exceptionalism we are all proud to talk about with respect to our country is defined by our doing exceptional work.

This is an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to rise with common purpose and make a difference, not just here in the United States, frankly, but most predominately make a difference in the rest of the world as to how people with disabilities are treated. I believe the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an opportunity for us to embrace the truth in legislating and to separate ourselves from ideological and/or partisan efforts to distort that truth or to prevent, actually, an alternative reality, which is what happens in some cases.

Our colleagues, I am told, want to approach this in good faith. We welcome that. We look forward to sitting down with them, working through what amendments we think we should vote on, and perhaps we can even work together to tweak one of the understandings or declarations in an appropriate way. We would like to make progress. I believe we can get this done. It will be a good moment for the Senate when we do.

I know we have not always agreed on all the issues and certainly not even with respect to this treaty. What I ask of my colleagues is this: Those who oppose this or who are inclined to oppose it, I would say step back and take a look at this treaty and measure the report language, the report the committee put out, and measure the transmittal letter of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State, and what they have said to the Senate is really at stake in this treaty.

I ask my colleagues before they come to the floor to carefully check the factual foundation of this treaty because we have continually heard some outside groups characterizing it in ways that simply do not meet the facts, that do not withstand scrutiny when measured against the law of the United States or international law or the law of the States. This treaty does not require any change whatsoever to American law. None. Zero. There is no impact on American law. There is no ability in this treaty for anybody to gain some new right here in the United States. No individual, American or foreign, gains any access to the courts in an effort to litigate some component of this treaty because the treaty specifically denies people any access to the courts. It is what is called--it is not self-executing. As a consequence of not being self-executing, it gives no right to any litigation.

So the obvious question from somebody might be, well, why do we want to do it then? What is the benefit to us? The benefit is very significant in terms of our diplomacy, in terms of the rights of Americans when they travel abroad, Americans with disabilities.

Now, our bottom line--I think our shared bottom line--Senator Lugar, Senator McCain, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others who support this treaty believe this will extend the protections to millions of disabled Americans when they leave our shores.

I thank Majority Leader Reid for being willing to bring this treaty to the floor at this moment in time when there is obviously a lot on Senators' minds, a lot of business before the Senate. But I believe this treaty will be deemed to have the requisite votes ultimately to show that this is, in fact, in the best interests of our country.

This treaty has been described as a modest treaty, but the impact of Senate ratification is actually far from modest. The impact will echo around the world. Why? Because the United States of America is the world's gold standard with respect to the treatment of people with disabilities.

This has been a long journey for us in the United States. We have gone through many different steps leading ultimately to the Americans with Disabilities Act, of which we celebrated the 20th anniversary. Our own colleague, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, was the leader on that landmark piece of legislation, together with my former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy. They moved this country forward in great steps so that we welcomed people with disabilities into mainstream America.

The impact of this treaty is to take that gold standard and extend it to countries that have never heard of disability rights or that have never changed their laws to accommodate people with disabilities. This will have a profound impact. Most significantly, it will have a profound impact on those who have served our country, those 5.5 million disabled American veterans who may want to travel abroad, work abroad, go to another country to study, who will as a result of this gain lifestyle benefits and accommodations they otherwise might never have.

Now, 125 nations have already signed this treaty and are living by it. We have not. We were the principal architect. Our laws are the model. But once again the United States has been holding back while other countries fill the vacuum we have left behind.

I wish to share with my colleagues a statement by Senator Bob Dole, who was as deeply committed to this cause as Senator Ted Kennedy, and he was committed to the original Americans with Disabilities Act. Senator Dole today, as we know, is in Bethesda Hospital. I do not know if he is listening at this time. I met with him not so many months ago. We talked about this and other issues. He is a great patriot. He was a great leader here in the Senate. I think his words ought to be listened to by our colleagues. Here is what he says:

It was an exceptional group that I joined during World War

II, which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that

neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth,

education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party,

power or prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities,

has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the

importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities

to mainstream American life, whether it's access to a job, or

education, or registering to vote.

Senator Dole went on to say:

U.S. ratification of the [Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities] will improve physical,

technological and communication access outside the U.S.,

thereby helping to ensure that Americans--particularly, many

thousands of disabled American veterans--have equal

opportunities to live, work, and travel abroad.

In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee this year, Special Adviser for International Disability Rights at the State Department Judith Heumann recounted in personal and searing terms why this issue is so important. She drew from the experience of her own life.

. . . As a child, I did not have the benefit of accessible

communities, inclusive schools, or accessible transportation.

Without even simple curb cuts, I wheeled in the streets

amongst oncoming traffic. I could not ride our buses and

trains. I was not allowed to go to school until I was 9 years

old, and then received poor quality education, segregated

from the rest of my peers. When I applied for my first job as

a teacher, I was initially denied my certification simply

because I could not walk.

Today she is advocating on behalf of the State Department for this treaty. She summed up her interests in this compelling way. She said:

U.S. citizens with disabilities frequently face barriers

when they travel, conduct business, study, serve, reside or

retire overseas. With our extensive domestic experience in

promoting equality and inclusion of persons with

disabilities, the United States is uniquely positioned to

help interested countries understand how to effectively

comply with their obligations under the Convention . . .

However, the fact that we have yet to ratify the Disabilities

Convention is frequently raised by foreign officials, and

deflects from what should be center stage: how their own

record of promoting disability rights could be improved.

She goes on to say:

Though I take great pride in the U.S. record, it is frankly

difficult to make best use of the `bully pulpit' to challenge

disabilities rights violations on behalf of Americans with

disabilities and others when we have not ratified the

Convention.

America's history--all of its history--has been marked by the long struggle for equality. It is a struggle that ought to inspire all of us to fight on behalf of many others whose voices too often are ignored or forgotten. Maybe the movie about Lincoln today would really rekindle in a lot of Americans that best sense of what is worth fighting for and what is worth achieving in public life.

For me, that vision of fighting for those people whose views are ignored or forgotten means having and holding on to a vision of a society that really works for the common good, where individual rights and freedoms are connected to our responsibilities to each other. All Americans have an inherent right to be treated as equal citizens of our Nation. But the historic march toward a better, fairer America can only come about if we are willing to make those less fortunate than ourselves the focus of our work. And this is a march that goes on for all of us, and it must go on because without it nothing changes.

One thing is clear: The disabilities convention is not an issue that pits Republicans against Democrats--Senator Lugar is here, Senator McCain, and others--nor is it an issue that should divide us along any partisan lines. The Foreign Relations Committee approved this treaty in a strong bipartisan vote on July 26, and that marked the 22nd anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

I am grateful to the majority leader, former Majority Leader Dole, and to President George Herbert Walker Bush, who joined a bipartisan group of Senators, whose names I have listed, in advocating for this important cause. I think our former colleague Senator Kennedy would be very proud if he could see us coming together today in support of a convention just as we did two decades ago with the ADA.

This treaty is personal to many Members here, to Senator Durbin, to Senator Harkin, to Senator Lugar, and others. Members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard to bring us to the floor today. I believe the questions have been answered. I think the report and the Record could not be more clear. The only question that remains is whether we are going to be remembered for approving the Disabilities Convention and reconnecting with our best traditions or finding an excuse to delay and defy our core responsibility as Senators.

I have received countless letters and heard from nearly 300 organizations on this issue. There is a long list--and I am not going to read all through those 300--every single major military organization supports this treaty; the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Women Officers Association, the American GI Forum, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children Disabled American Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and then a long list, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Veterans of Modern Warfare, Vietnam Veterans of America, countless other faith-based associations, the Methodist General Board of Church and Society, the United Church of Christ. You could run through a huge number of faith-based organizations, a huge number of human rights and rights organizations from all over our country. I urge Senators to check with the rights organizations and others in their own States. Almost every State in the Union--the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Association, the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services. You could run a long list of people who believe the time has come.

I would ask unanimous consent that the full list of these supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, across the developing world, persons with disabilities face remarkable indignities and prejudice on a daily basis. They are prevented from attending schools, they are subject to discriminatory hiring practices, they are often unable to enter a public building, unable to safely cross a street, unable to even ride a public bus. There are an estimated 650 million people in the world today who live with a disability. Some 36 million of our fellow Americans are disabled, and veterans are filing disability claims at an unprecedented level. There is a challenge in these statistics, and it is a challenge to the decency and humanity of every Member of the Senate.

When a disabled child in a developing country is killed at birth because of their disability, that is a challenge to every single one of us, as Americans and as citizens of the world.

When a pervasive cultural stereotype forces disabled people to abandon their dreams and toil away in crushing poverty, it should offend the sensibilities of everybody in the Senate, and we have a chance to do something about that. When our wounded warriors are prevented from living, working, studying, or traveling abroad because of a lack of basic physical access, that violates our sacred oath.

I urge my colleagues to go to the report and read the testimony of people who have talked about how things have changed in certain countries because countries signed on to this treaty to try to reach the American gold standard. Each of these episodes that denies people those opportunities takes a little piece of our humanity.

I think our identity, I think our exceptionalism is personally on the line in this vote. I know some have said we don't need this treaty. Some have even argued it requires a change in law when it doesn't require any change in the law.

To paraphrase Senator Moynihan, who reminded us often, everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts, I simply say to my colleagues, there are basic facts with respect to this treaty, and we will argue them over the course of the next hour and perhaps days.

I want to share the most important facts right upfront. I said this earlier, and I am going to repeat it. This treaty--I hope we won't hear this debate on the floor of the Senate, because the text, the legal and documentary text of the report language and the treaty and the transmittal language and the interpretations of the Justice Department all make it clear, this treaty does not require any change in American law. None. Testimony from everybody, including former Republican Attorney General Thornburgh, makes that clear.

In addition to that, to make certain we address the concerns of our colleagues so that we reinforce that notion, the Foreign Relations Committee included additional, multiple reservations, understandings, and declarations in the resolution of advice and consent, including one that ensures that the treaty cannot be relied on as a cause of action in State or Federal courts. When we ratify this, we will ratify it with a clear understanding that there is no right of action in America's State or Federal courts.

We have also heard the argument that the convention could somehow change U.S. domestic law with respect to abortion. Again, let me make it as clear as I know how: This is absolutely, positively, factually inaccurate. The convention does not mandate or prohibit any particular medical procedure, heart surgery, brain surgery, abortion, or anything else, and we made that crystal clear in the understandings of ratification.

What it does require is something very simple. It requires that governments do not discriminate against the disabled in anything that they do allow or prohibit. If you allow a procedure, you must allow it for the disabled and the nondisabled alike. If you prohibit a procedure, you must prohibit it for the disabled and the nondisabled alike. That is all this treaty does, but it is powerful and critical to those millions of people who are discriminated against otherwise. The Foreign Relations Committee included language in the resolution of advice and consent to clarify what I just said.

Some have also tried to make the argument that the disabilities committee

created by this treaty--there is a committee that is created--is somehow going to intrude on the lives of Americans. Again, our good President John Adams once said that facts are stubborn things. Well, they are stubborn, they don't go away. The facts are that this treaty, in this committee that it creates, has no power, except to make a report to put people on notice so they can then consider what they might want to do. It doesn't require any action, it doesn't compel any action, it has no authority to do so. It simply sheds the light of day on what may or may not be happening somewhere so people can then nudge and push and jawbone and use the pressure of public scrutiny to hopefully change behavior.

By terms of the treaty, this committee has exceedingly limited powers. It can simply accept and review a country report and make a recommendation. That is it--that recommendation--nothing else.

The fact is, here in the United States we are blessed because we already live up to the principles of this treaty. Our laws, including the ADA, are more than sufficient to compel compliance with this treaty from day one. That is why nothing is going to change here at home except for those people with disabilities who can turn to their family and say, you know, I can go take that job over here or I can travel over there or I could go study over there, because the standards are going to rise and people will be able to do that.

For decades, I am proud to say, the world has looked to the United States as a leader on disability rights, and it is hard to believe that actually some people are now beginning to question our resolve on something that we were the leader on. That is disappointing, I think, to everybody who has been affiliated with this effort over the years.

Let me quote John Lancaster. John is a disabled Vietnam veteran who testified in support of this treaty and who challenged us all to do the right thing. His words are stark and simple. He said:

As someone who volunteered and laid my life on the line for

freedom, rights, dignity . . . now to have this whole debate

that we're not willing to espouse [the Disabilities

Convention] to the rest of the world? That we're not willing

to walk the talk in international circles? To step up to the

forum and advocate . . . We aspire to what's in this

Convention. That is what we are about as a nation: including

people, giving them freedom, giving them rights, giving them

the opportunity to work, to learn, to participate. Isn't that

what we are about? Isn't that what we want the rest of the

world to be about? Well, if we aren't willing to say that is

a good thing and to say it formally, what are we about?

That is a powerful statement from a man who served his country.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is more than a piece of paper. It is not an empty promise. It is a reflection of our values as a nation. It is a lever, it is an inspiration, it is a diplomatic tool. It creates the ability to change life for people in many other countries, and that is what America is about.

John Lancaster closed out his testimony saying:

From a veteran perspective, I think we have much to gain

from the improved accessibility of the world. Today some

disabled soldiers and Marines remain on active duty in spite

of their disability, continuing to serve their country. These

servicemembers should be afforded the same rights outside the

United States as they enjoy here. For a disabled veteran

working abroad, the adoption of disability rights and

implementation of disability laws allows them to do their

jobs more effectively and reaffirms what they served for:

liberty and the opportunity to participate.

He closed by saying we have a moral obligation to one another to serve our great country and to show what we represent to all mankind.

When he returned from Vietnam, John struggled for years with environmental obstacles, employment discrimination. I think we owe it to him and to millions of Americans facing a similar plight today to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and get the job done.

When George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law, he did so with the hope that it was going to foster full and equal access to civic, economic, and social life for people with disabilities in America. Senator Kennedy, who played an important role, said, ``This act has the potential to become one of the great civil rights laws of our generation . . . It is a bill of rights for the disabled, and America will be a better and fairer nation because of it.''

That was the spirit that animated the passage of the ADA, and it is the same spirit that has inspired a bipartisan group of Senators to work tirelessly to pass this convention.

For far too long persons with disabilities have been left in the shadows or left to fend for themselves. We must resolve again as Senators and as citizens to fight for our principles. It isn't a question of time. It is a question of priorities--a question of willpower, not capacity. This treaty reflects our highest ideals as a nation, and now is the time to act.

In closing, I say to colleagues: When there is an opportunity for change, America must be there to help--to keep faith, and to use our voice to support those who are striving for reform.

This really is one of those moments the Senate was intended to live up to--and it demands leadership and a willingness to find the common ground.

If discrimination against persons with disabilities is to stop--and it must--then we must stop it. We all know that restoring the full measure of rights to persons with disabilities is not just a lofty goal. It's a core value here at home and an imperative abroad. But it is not enough to know how things ought to be. Our job is to ask how we can make them so.

After all, if the American people said anything in this election year, it is that Members of Congress need to work not just on their side but side by side. It is the only way we can fully complete our constitutional duties. It is the only way--in a divided country, at a time of heightened partisan tensions--that ideology will yield to common sense. And it is the only way that we will approve the disabilities convention and live out the truth behind those timeless and inimitable words: that all of us are created equal.

I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana, not just for his comments now but for his many years of leadership on these issues and for his wonderful partnership in all of this. I will have more to say about that as the days go on, but we are going to miss his vision and wisdom over the course of the years.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided under the quorum call. I would hope colleagues would come to the floor and use the time as they desire.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and I want to comment quickly before I yield the floor to the Senator from Minnesota. I also have a unanimous consent request.

I heard the Senator pay appropriate tribute to Senator Lugar for his accomplishments in terms of making the world safer. I say to my friend, without any question whatsoever in reserve that the accomplishment of the ADA is one of those singular moments in the career of any U.S. Senator and it made the world better here at home, and a lot of other places if we get this done. The Senator from Iowa helped set that gold standard, so I thank him for that and for the pleasure--there are only three of us left from our class, so it is good to stand up with him today, and I appreciate it enormously.

I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate only on the treaty be extended until 6:30 p.m., with the time equally divided as provided under the previous order; further, that at 6:30 p.m., the majority leader be recognized.

Madam President, I wanted to thank the Senator from Minnesota so much for taking time to come over. I know she did not intend to earlier, but she cares about the issue and took the time to come and share her thoughts with us. We are very appreciative. We obviously hope the Twins do whatever they want, second only to the Red Sox in the future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If I might just say to my colleague, the resolution actually does address it, but I have not, so I think it would be important, if the Senator wishes to address that.

Madam President.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Arizona. I thank him for his comments just now, but most importantly I really appreciate his extraordinary leadership on this issue and a lot of human rights issues, issues of conscience. He speaks with a very important voice, and I think he knows I am always happier when he is working with me than against me on any issue on the floor. I know he used to pride himself in his fight occasionally with Senator Kennedy, but he also prided himself enormously when they were able to get together and work together.

I have certainly enjoyed the many things Senator McCain and I have done together--most notably, I think, joining hands across a certain belief divide to help end the war in Vietnam, the real war that kept raging in the minds of a lot of people, and that was a 10-year journey we made together. I am certainly proud of that and grateful to him.

But I want to come back to this treaty for a moment and Senator McCain's efforts on it. I would say to my colleagues who have raised in the minority report a couple of concerns--and none of us are dismissive of those concerns--every Senator has the right to express their beliefs, but I can't think of a Senator more compelled. He has been the ranking member and chair of the Armed Services Committee and for years has been one of the leading voices on defense issues and now the defense of our Nation. Everybody knows his record in terms of personal service. I think there is no Senator who comes to the floor arguing more consistently the prerogatives of the United States of America with respect to defending our Nation and upholding the Constitution.

I would ask my colleagues who are finding some reason to doubt this treaty or to have some sense that it presents a threat to our country to take appropriate note of Senator McCain's fervent commitment to this and to the comments he made about former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. I knew the Attorney General when he was Attorney General. I have enormous respect for him and for his career, and I think Senator McCain was 100 percent correct when he quoted him in the record as saying that nothing in this treaty will require any initiative by the United States to change a law or to reduce any capacity of our courts to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I think he did an important service in his comments with respect to that. I thank him for his contribution. Our fight is not over. We have some work to do in the next days, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that time be logged to both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Murray, that Jake Cornett, a fellow in her office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the cloture vote on the Sportsmen's Act (S. 3525). If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported cloture on this legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask the Senator this question. We all understand the normal rules of the Senate. This is a big policy, cutting off four countries' aid with a set of circumstances that is so rigid it may encompass countries such as Israel and others. The normal rules of comity are that something such as this would go through the appropriate committee. That is why we have committees.

The Senator from South Carolina is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. This has never been to the Foreign Relations Committee. Does the Senator believe some policy as important as this doesn't deserve a hearing, doesn't deserve a process? I think the Senator knows that as the chairman I have never slowed down a process of our committee. The normal rules of comity ought to require this to go through the committee.

I will just take 1 minute before I yield back. With respect to the question, first of all--I obviously do not run the Senate so I cannot speak about what happened with respect to these other pieces of legislation, but I am responsible for the Foreign Relations Committee. This particular amendment was filed at the desk on September 19. We are here under rule XIV. That is not months of work. The first time I heard of it was when it came to the desk. So this could well have been a policy we amended in the committee, that we worked on appropriately, came up with some appropriate way of dealing with legitimate issues.

I am not denigrating the legitimacy of some of the issues the Senator from Kentucky raises. We had a very profound conversation with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan the other day. The Foreign Relations Committee met with her. We went into Dr. Afridi's situation in some detail, and there are other issues raised here. But just to come in out of the whole blue and file it at the desk and say let's change years of policy with a country that we, in the case of Egypt, desperately rely on with respect to the peace process in the Middle East, sustaining the peace agreement with Israel--it just defies rationale about how you make good foreign policy.

I will have more to say about it in a moment, but I just want to make it clear this did not come to the floor until September 19 at the desk and it is here under rule XIV.

I don't know how much time we have.

We will hold off and come back.

Not on my time, no. I will do it on the Senator's time.

Yes, I object.

Mr. President, let me say quickly to the Senator from Kentucky, whom I asked the other day whether he has ever been to Pakistan or Egypt--I think if he had, he would know something more about the millions of people in those countries who aspire to democracy and who have invested in our values and are trying to have a different future.

I particularly--``resent'' is not a particularly attractive word, but to hear him say that the Foreign Relations Committee has done nothing on Dr. Afridi does a disservice to the efforts we have been making in what is called a quiet and thoughtful diplomacy. Not all diplomacy is conducted by passing a fly-by-night amendment on the floor of the Senate, pretending that is going to improve relations or change the world. When we sit down with people and talk through problems, we can work out a resolution.

We had a long conversation just a day ago with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan about Dr. Afridi. That was not the first conversation. For months some of us have been talking with Pakistan about how we resolve this issue, which does, incidentally, have something to do with the law of another country, the politics of another country, and the political demands and needs of another country. It is not always the best way to resolve those things simply by racing to the floor of the Senate and saying: Here, do what we tell you. I am afraid that is not always how it works.

So I think the Senator from Kentucky has a lot to learn about how we get things done within the international community.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

How much time is remaining altogether?

Does the Senator plan to use his time?

Mr. President, I yield such time as I may use. I will be happy to have the Senator speak last if that is what he wants to do.

We have heard today from 110 retired generals and admirals that the suspension of U.S. aid is not in America's interest and that assistance is a critical component of America's national security strategy.

We have heard from Jewish Americans about the impacts this bill would have on our relationship with Israel at what they have called ``a time of turmoil and uncertainty,'' and ``the U.S. government needs to be able to use all available tools to influence events in the region.''

It would affect Israel's security if the United States were to suddenly pull out its assistance and change its relationship with Yemen and particularly change its relationship with Egypt.

I have heard from the State Department, which said this legislation ``will weaken democracies'' and ``play into the hands of extremists.''

With respect to Libya, Senator McCain has just spoken eloquently about Chris Stevens. He knew Chris Stevens. We knew him on our committee. He worked for Senator Lugar, and we knew him as a Pearson fellow. There was no more dedicated person. We just confirmed him and sent him over this May. I guarantee that the last thing he would want is his death being used as an excuse for the United States to cut off Libya and to disengage.

The 30,000 people who marched today marched for America. They marched for themselves. They marched for democracy. They marched for what Chris Stevens was investing in. I don't think we want to punish those people and that government because of what happened.

With respect to Egypt, the United States derives extraordinarily important security benefits from that relationship. Shutting down American military assistance to Egypt would jeopardize our nonproliferation initiatives. It would undermine efforts to stop the smuggling of weapons and interdicting of arms into Gaza, which affects the security of Israel. It would undermine the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Those of us who have traveled to Israel in recent months have heard concern from Israeli officials about the prospects of suspension of American military assistance to Egypt. They have already talked about it. They are nervous about it, and they think it would have a profound negative impact on their security and Israel.

These are the connections the Paul legislation just doesn't face up to. Senator Paul's legislation would essentially shut down our ability to work with the new civilian government. And while we are working to build the same kind of alliance with them we have had previously, it would really interrupt that and say to them that the United States of America is not interested in having that kind of an alliance.

With respect to Pakistan, the reality is the United States has vital national security interests in Pakistan, all of which are at stake. They have a population of 190 million people, a troubled economy, pockets of extremism, and a robust nuclear arsenal. We can't turn our backs on any of that, and I think we need to remember that our aid plays a critical role in supporting our interests and our values.

The Paul amendment would make us less secure, and it is in no one's interest.

Whatever time we have, I reserve the remainder.

Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate.

Mr. President, for such time as I have left, let me make it clear: The Paul legislation requires all identifiable persons associated with organizing, planning, participating in the attacks, trespass, breach, or attempted attack, have been identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, or other United States law enforcement entity, and are in United States custody. We are talking about other countries. That is an absolutely impossible-to-fulfill requirement and that is why it would result in the cutoff of aid automatically, and that is why it is dangerous.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his determined support of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for his request for the Senate to approve the treaty today. I appreciate the thought that he has put into the consideration of this treaty and the work he has done in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities.

It has been 22 years since the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act knocked down barriers to employment and government services here at home. Now it is time to do the same for Americans with disabilities when they travel overseas.

This is not an issue that pits Republicans against Democrats. The Foreign Relations Committee approved this treaty in a strong bipartisan vote on July 26, the 22nd anniversary of the ADA. I am deeply grateful to former Majority Leader Dole and President George Herbert Walker Bush, who have joined a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Lugar, Barrasso, Moran, Coons, Durbin, Harkin, and Udall in advocating for such an important cause. Senator Kennedy would be proud if he could see us coming together today in support of the Convention as we did 2 decades ago in support of the ADA.

Members from both sides of the aisle worked hard to achieve this moment. The questions have been answered. The only question that remains is whether we will be remembered for approving the Disabilities Convention and extending essential protections for the millions of Americans with disabilities, or for finding excuses to delay and defer our core responsibility as Senators.

I have heard from countless advocates on this issue--from the Perkins School for the Blind in my home State to disabled Americans and veterans groups across the country, all of whom tell me that this Convention will make a difference in their daily lives.

And, believe me, it will. This Convention will extend essential protections to disabled persons everywhere, including our disabled servicemen and women and veterans when they travel, live, study or work overseas. It will enshrine the principles of the ADA on the international level and provide us with a critical tool as we advocate for the adoption of its standards globally.

We already live up to the principles of this treaty here in America. Our strong laws--including the ADA--are more than sufficient to allow us to comply with this treaty from day one. Nothing is going to change here at home. But our delay in joining this treaty has an impact abroad.

For decades the world has looked to America as a leader on disabilities rights. It is hard to believe but some are now questioning our resolve--because of the failure to ratify this treaty. That is not acceptable and that is not what America is about.

It isn't a question of time. It is a question of priorities--a question of willpower, not capacity. This treaty reflects our highest ideals as a nation, and now is the time to act.

Mr. President, last summer Massachusetts lost a gentleman, the fishing industry lost an icon and I lost a friend. For years Joe Garland served as the unofficial historian of Gloucester, MA--its fishermen, its boats and its life. If you visit the Fisherman's Memorial on Gloucester's waterfront on a stormy winter day, the statue of the Heroic Mariner seems to be steering the whole town into the wind toward fair weather. And if you look closely at the statue, you can almost see Joe Garland in its carved granite face, full of grit and determination, guiding his beloved Gloucester through headwinds and troubled waters.

He's been gone for more than a year now, but his memory lives on through his loving wife Helen, his family, his friends and through the continuing legacy of the schooner Adventure.

In my Boston office, I have a copy of his book about the Adventure, which he helped to restore. When I received it many years ago, it arrived with an invitation from Joe to tour the schooner and, of course, I didn't waste any time accepting his invitation. He welcomed me aboard, and his tour made the Adventure's history come alive--from its construction in 1926 through its career as a ``highliner,'' the biggest moneymaker of them all, landing nearly $4 million worth of cod and halibut during her career.

As Joe himself once wrote, ``The Adventure is a survivor, not a vision. She is here, real and beautiful . . . I can stand on those decks with the whole-sail breeze, arms hooked into the rigging, and watch her go, watch the miles bubble out from under the stern as they have done now for more than fifty [now nearing 100] years. She is fantastic!''

As we celebrate the historic restoration of the Adventure, and celebrate Joe's incredible life, I know that he is smiling down on us today, on what would have been his 90th birthday. Mr. President, the world weathers so many storms, but at the center of each we find people of character who revive our hope and give us strength. Joe Garland was such a man, and we are all blessed to have had his strength and his character as an example, and we are equally blessed that he left us with such a marvelous schooner, the Adventure, as an enduring reminder of his life.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the accomplishments of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA), a company that has provided affordable health insurance options for families in the Commonwealth for the past 75 years.

As our Nation's health care system has evolved, BCBSMA has remained a leader in the industry by focusing on the principles of service, leadership, and innovation. In fact, it was the first organization of its kind to offer statewide insurance coverage for hospitalization-- providing all working families a financially realistic option so they could afford a hospital stay when it was needed. And decades later, BCBSMA was instrumental in helping to create several of the State's best-known health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

BCBSMA has been actively working to improve the health of their members through an innovative benefit design that focuses on prevention and customized wellness programs, encourages community-based care, and improves care coordination.

Additionally, they have been national leaders in payment reform by designing an innovative model that has demonstrated the ability to improve the quality of patient care while simultaneously slowing the growth of health care spending. In 2008, BCBSMA created a new payment system called the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC). This model rewards physicians and hospitals for the quality and outcomes of the care they provide to patients. Providers receive a global budget for their patients and are responsible for any excessive spending and are rewarded for quality. This combination of the global budget and pay- for-performance incentives establishes provider accountability for both the quality and cost of care.

BCBSMA isn't just committed to its members; they are leaders in the community with a distinct focus on corporate citizenship and civic engagement. They spend countless hours working within the community to make a measurable and sustainable impact on issues such as child development, healthy environments, and family nutrition. During the last year, BCBSMA associates volunteered to perform more than 26,000 hours of community service throughout Massachusetts. In their tradition of supporting the work of not-for-profit organizations, BCBSMA is commemorating their 75th anniversary by providing grants to community stakeholders working to advance the health and nutrition of families facing economic hardship.

BCBSMA founded the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation in 2001, one of the largest health-focused private philanthropies in New England, to expand access to health care. The Foundation played an important role in the passage of Massachusetts health reform in 2006 by providing reliable data and objective analysis to policy-makers and convening stakeholders for sessions of public debate. Massachusetts now has the best health care coverage rate in the Nation with 98.1 percent of residents having health insurance, including 99.8 percent of all children.

Not only did BCBSMA work to expand health care coverage in the Commonwealth, they were a leader in the national effort to expand health care coverage to all Americans. BCBSMA was the only health plan in the Nation to file an amicus, or ``friend of the court'', brief in support of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act when it was considered by the Supreme Court earlier this year. They believed the health reform law was critical to ensure that all Americans have the same health care benefits and protections that Massachusetts residents have known for years.

As we continue to implement the Affordable Care Act, I am confident that BCBSMA will be there every step of the way. They are rated among the nation's best health plans for member satisfaction and quality and their commitment to both exceptional and affordable health care is clearly evident to their nearly three million members in Massachusetts.

I congratulate Andrew Dreyfus, President and Chief Executive Officer, and all the employees at BCBSMA who work together to advance the availability of quality health care on this remarkable milestone. I look forward to the innovation and leadership you will deliver over the next 75 years for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.